|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 21, 2010 22:57:29 GMT -8
Shouldn't this be discussed in another thread? The response could get quite lengthy. If you'd like to create one, I would be happy to respond to your questions. I completely agree. The doctrine of atonement has been misunderstood for millenia by Messianics. The Brit Chadasha doesn't help much in it's current English translation. Let's get Biblical folks. You start the thread, and I'll be sure to follow.
|
|
|
Post by zionlion on Jan 23, 2010 21:34:58 GMT -8
Chizuk and David,
I have no questions. The questions in my quoted post are rhetorical.
As long as rabbi Riskin declines acceptance of the New Covenant, he simply has no atonement.
End of story.
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 23, 2010 22:27:22 GMT -8
As long as rabbi Riskin declines acceptance of the New Covenant, he simply has no atonement. End of story. If there is no atonement apart from "accepting the new covenant" as you suggest, then none of us have recieved it yet. The new covenant is not fully in effect today, although it has indeed been cut already.
|
|
|
Post by zionlion on Jan 24, 2010 9:54:20 GMT -8
Believers are exhorted to manifest the gifts and fruit of the Spirit. That's really hard to do without the indwelling of the Spirit, which is the purpose and a sign of the New Covenant.
If the Covenant is not in full effect, how much remains to be seen: 25%; 50%; 60%?
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 24, 2010 15:50:04 GMT -8
Believers are exhorted to manifest the gifts and fruit of the Spirit. That's really hard to do without the indwelling of the Spirit, which is the purpose and a sign of the New Covenant. If this is true, then no Israelite could have manifested the fruits of the Ruach before the new covenant began. Something isn't kosher with that reasoning. When exactly do you think the Scriptures state the new covenant began? I believe Yirmeyahu is crystal clear on the purpose, and the sign of the new covenant: (Jeremiah 31:33-34 CJB) "For this is the covenant I will make with the house of Isra'el after those days," says ADONAI: " I will put my within them and write it on their hearts; I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will any of them teach his fellow community member or his brother, 'Know ADONAI'; for all will know me, from the least of them to the greatest; because I will forgive their wickednesses and remember their sins no more." According to this passage, the new covenant is made with the twelve tribes of Israel, for the purpose of causing them to walk in the commandments of HaShem. The sign is that every single one of them shall know the L-rd, and teaching their brethren will no longer be needed. Ezekiel agrees: (Ezekiel 36:24-28 CJB) For I will take you from among the nations, gather you from all the countries, and return you to your own soil. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit inside you; I will take the stony heart out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit inside you and cause you to live by my laws, respect my rulings and obey them. You will live in the land I gave to your ancestors. You will be my people, and I will be your God. Let us take note that this new covenant occurs after the exiles return to the land of Israel. If the Apostolic Scriptures appear to somehow change the definition, or the conditions of the new covenant, then we are not understanding them correctly. It's either that, or Yeshua and the Apostles are dead wrong. Which I don't think is the case at all. But rather, something is faulty with the new covenant 'now' theory. I believe that part of the problem is that modern appologists don't understand the Hebrew idiom of the 'prophetic perfect' when reading the Apostolic Scriptures in regards to the new covenant. This Hebrew idiom is explained in this post: HERE.
|
|
|
Post by zionlion on Jan 24, 2010 17:10:22 GMT -8
The significance of the New Covenant is that all believers are permitted to receive the Spirit of Elohim whereas under the Mosaic Covenant, only certain individuals were permitted the privilege. These individuals did manifest the gifts. No one is saying that keeping is not the prime objective. But it is the power of the Spirit which enables one to do so; which is why the New Covenant was instituted and is in effect until the end of the age. I don't see the problem here.
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 24, 2010 17:45:37 GMT -8
The significance of the New Covenant is that all believers are permitted to receive the Spirit of Elohim whereas under the Mosaic Covenant, only certain individuals were permitted the privilege. These individuals did manifest the gifts. No one is saying that keeping is not the prime objective. But it is the power of the Spirit which enables one to do so; which is why the New Covenant was instituted and is in effect until the end of the age. I don't see the problem here. Actually, there is a huge problem if we are to retain the above understanding. If keeping the is the prime objective, and the Ruach enables one to do so, but only certain individuals were permitted that privilege as you suggest. Then what your really saying is that HaShem only permitted a select few to actually keep the . This flies in the face of passages such as this: (Deuteronomy 30:11-14 CJB) For this mitzvah which I am giving you today is not too hard for you, it is not beyond your reach. It isn't in the sky, so that you need to ask, 'Who will go up into the sky for us, bring it to us and make us hear it, so that we can obey it?' Likewise, it isn't beyond the sea, so that you need to ask, 'Who will cross the sea for us, bring it to us and make us hear it, so that we can obey it?' On the contrary, the word is very close to you - in your mouth, even in your heart; therefore, you can do it! Your suggestion in the last post makes HaShem out to be a liar in this passage, and is a direct contradiction to what this passage is clearly teaching. I strongly suggest that you take another approach to understanding the new covenant, as well as the work of the indwelling Spirit in light of that covenant. Your current understanding just doesn't jive with that which is written. I formerly believed as you do now, so I'm not casting stones. However, there is a better understanding available to all who are willing to seek, and accept the truth. *EDIT*I would also like to add that you seem to ignore the part about ALL of Israel knowing the L-rd, from the least to the greatest, and not having to be taught anymore. As well as the part about the exiles being brought back into the land of Israel. How can we ignore such important covenant aspects such as these?
|
|
|
Post by zionlion on Jan 24, 2010 20:53:55 GMT -8
I don't know what more I can say. The Tanakh has no shortage of passages showing Elohim's anger at Israel's continual breaking of His covenant. If you're telling me that all Israel was filled with the Ruach, then His anger is all the more understandable. Makes one wonder why He would create a covenant to write on the heart if one already existed. Chizuk, if you don't consider the New Covenant writings to be Scripture, your problem is with Elohim and Yeshua - not me. I see no benefit in defending the obvious so let's just agree to disagree. One day we'll all find out the answer to these things.
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 24, 2010 21:34:13 GMT -8
I don't know what more I can say. The Tanakh has no shortage of passages showing Elohim's anger at Israel's continual breaking of His covenant. If you're telling me that all Israel was filled with the Ruach, then His anger is all the more understandable. No, that's not what I said at all. Your twisting my words around. I have repeatedly stated that the new covenant is not now in effect, according to the Scriptures. If it was, then all Israel would walk in HaShem's commandments, and statutes. I never said that all Israel was filled with the Ruach. They clearly were not, and are not, presently. That won't happen until the covenant is renewed, which is necessarily a future reality. This comes after the exiles return to the land of Israel from their diaspora among the nations. I refuse to ignore the conditions that HaShem has set in His word for these things to come about. I would only encourage everyone else to not ignore them either. Makes one wonder why He would create a covenant to write on the heart if one already existed. The difference is the mode in which the covenant is delivered, and carried out. I thought that was pretty clear in the passages I quoted from Yirmeyahu, and Ezekiel.
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 25, 2010 13:27:33 GMT -8
My only problem is when people misunderstand what constitutes atonement. There has been a rabbi-trail paved down this thread that I wanted to save for another more specific one. I agree that there is a misunderstanding within Christianity, as well as the Messianic movement, concerning what constitutes atonement. Perhaps you could start a thread on the subject? I would like to participate in that discussion.
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 29, 2010 23:50:37 GMT -8
I hope I won't be banned again for thinking differently I would hope nobody warrants banning for merely thinking differently. If a viewpoint is indeed Biblical, then it should be able to stand up to scrutiny. At least, that's the way I see it. And according to Testimonies, especially in Isaiah 53, the consensus is that the Suffering Servant is the Messiah. Well, Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name, just in case we are tempted to assume that he could have been an individual. (Isa. 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21) Here's ten reasons why Yeshayahu cannot be referring to Israel in chapter 53: LINKAnd that's the just the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps you can refute those ten reasons why Yeshayahu is not referring to Israel as the suffereing servant?
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 30, 2010 3:10:04 GMT -8
David, all you can do to have your link about those ten reasons why you claim Isaiah is not referring to Israel as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is to try to understand my thread on "Messiah ben Joseph versus Messiah ben David." I am posting it for your understanding and the understanding of all the others. Good luck! Ben Sorry, but your just being rude again, and avoiding my questions. If Israel is the suffering servant of Yeshayahu 53 then please refute the ten reasons I posted it cannot be Israel. If your going to try to establish your interpretation, then you should be able to easily answer those questions. It's quite simple really. And I've studied the two Mashiakh theory extensively, and I must say your presentation of it is your own private interpretation. It does not represent the Talmudic, and Rabbinic teaching on the subject at all. Try posting that theory on an Orthodox Jewish forum, rather than the one you posted it on HERE and see how it flies.
|
|